Orders Dismissing Merchant Mariners’ Claims for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Reversed After Finding of Waiver United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, April 9, 2019

OHIO — The appeals for this matter stem from the dismissal of claims filed in the Northern District of Ohio. In 1989 several ship owner defendants moved to dismiss a multitude of merchant mariner claims suits for lack of personal jurisdiction. In sum, the defendants argued that the merchant mariners’ claims for nationwide jurisdiction were invalid. The court found a lack of personal jurisdiction but denied the motions to dismiss and indicated that the court would transfer the cases to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania…
Continue reading...

Summary Judgment Denied to Asbestos Clothing Manufacturer Based on Plaintiff ‘s Contradictory Affidavit United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division, March 12, 2019

OHIO –The plaintiff Donald MacLachlan brought suit against several defendants including American Optical (AO) alleging he developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos while working at the Weirton Steel plant from 1971-2008. He was deposed in 2015 and also alleged exposure to steam turbines manufactured by General Electric. As for AO, The plaintiff testified that he wore asbestos containing thermal gloves and coats manufactured by that defendant beginning in 1979 while working as a cast house helper. The plaintiff was adamant that the…
Continue reading...

Summary Judgment Granted for Crane Co. in Maritime Action U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division February 12, 2019

OHIO — The plaintiff sued Crane Co. and other defendants based upon his alleged exposure to asbestos while serving in the Navy from 1960 to 1967. Crane filed for summary judgment on plaintiff’s maritime law strict liability negligence claims. The court applied the Lindstrom standard. Despite the plaintiff’s urging, the court did not adopt a fact-specific standard with regard to the bare metal defense, instead applying the Sixth Circuit’s bright line rule. The court found that the plaintiff failed to put forth any evidence of…
Continue reading...

Ohio Defendants Can Force Plaintiffs to Prove That Asbestos Was a Substantial Factor in Lung Cancer With Sufficient Proof of Smoking Supreme Court of Ohio, September 27, 2018

OHIO — The Plaintiff Bobby Turner, an occasional cigar smoker, alleged that he developed lung cancer as a result of exposure to asbestos from his work as a drywall finisher between 1962 and 1978. At the outset of his case, Turner did not submit a report per RC 2307.92(c)(1).that showed “diagnosis by a competent medical authority that [he] has primary lung cancer and that exposure to asbestos is a substantial contributing factor to that cancer.” Essentially, Turner took the position that he was not a…
Continue reading...

Weight-of-the-Evidence Standard Used by Plaintiff’s Experts Found to Satisfy Daubert Requirements United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. September 5, 2018

OHIO — Defendant Honeywell International filed Motions in limine to Preclude the plaintiff’s Experts Dr. Murray Finkelstein and Dr. Carlos Bedrossian and dismiss the plaintiff’s claims, or, in the alternative, its request for evidentiary hearing. The plaintiffs filed oppositions. The court determined that both doctors utilized the weight-of-the-evidence standard in formulating their opinions of the case in line with the prescriptions under Daubert.  Additionally, Dr. Finkelstein’s methodology had previously been scrutinized at a Daubert hearing in another jurisdiction and was upheld as valid and…
Continue reading...

Failure to Timely Submit Supplemental Expert Report Leads to Denial of Motion for Leave Superior Court of Delaware, August 8, 2018

DELAWARE — The plaintiff moved for leave to submit a supplemental expert report after a change in substantive Ohio law. The court had previously granted summary judgment in favor of four defendants. Specifically, the defendants argued that summary judgment was proper based on the Ohio Supreme Court’s recent decision in Schwartz which found theories advanced on cumulative exposure as invalid to establish substantial factor causation. In the instant matter, The plaintiffs submitted an expert report from Dr. Ginsberg 8 months prior to the deadline imposed…
Continue reading...

Denial of Worker’s Compensation Claim by employee of Scotts Miracle Grow Upheld on Appeal. Court of Appeals, Third District, Union County, July 30, 2018

OHIO — The plaintiff James Bennett filed a worker’s compensation claim for his development of “pleural plaque” disease he attributed to asbestos exposure while working for Scotts Miracle Grow (Scotts). Bennett began receiving benefits for his claim but then filed for additional payments for his recent “asbestosis” diagnosis. The hearing officer denied his claim for asbestosis finding that the plaintiff had not established the disease process. The plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the parties did not dispute that the plaintiff had been exposed to asbestos. Rather,…
Continue reading...

Brake Lining Manufacturer’s Summary Judgment Affirmed in Part in Second Filing in Different Counties Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Summit County, June 6, 2018

OHIO — Plaintiff Margie Taylor, the executor of the estate of her father Russell Young, originally filed claims against Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that Young was exposed to asbestos from work on aircraft brake linings during his employment with Goodyear Aerospace Corporation. Goodyear filed a motion for summary judgment on premises liability, negligent undertaking, and intentional tort claims, which was granted by the court in an entry on the electronic “File & Serve” docket, and…
Continue reading...

Cumulative-Exposure Theory Inconsistent with Test for Causation; Not a Sufficient Basis for Finding Substantial Factor Supreme Court of Ohio, January 24, 2018 (decided); February 8, 2018 (released)

OHIO — The decedent  Kathleen Schwartz’s husband, Mark Schwartz, filed suit against numerous manufacturers of asbestos-containing products, alleging that asbestos exposure caused her to develop mesothelioma, leading to her death. By the time of trial, Honeywell International, Inc., the successor-in-interest to Bendix Corporation, was the only defendant who remained. The issue at trial — and on appeal — was whether the decedent’s exposure to asbestos from Bendix brake products was a substantial factor in causing the decedent’s mesothelioma. The decedent’s father changed the brakes in…
Continue reading...

Plaintiff’s Testimony about Secondary Brake Exposure Sufficient to Overcome Summary Judgment U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, December 13, 2017

OHIO – Plaintiff Julia Alexander filed suit against multiple defendants after she was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma in May of 2016. The plaintiff alleges that she was exposed to asbestos via Bendix brake products which were manufactured by Honeywell International. The plaintiff testified that she visited her fiancé, an automobile mechanic, two to three times per week for four hours a visit from 1987-91. Throughout this period, the plaintiff alleges she observed her fiancé performing brake work on a variety of vehicles one to three…
Continue reading...